adj-00034774

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

A Clerk of the Oireachtas

Representatives

Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 Equal Status Act 2000

CA-00042258-002

01/03/2021

It is the complainant’s case that she was discriminated against on grounds of disability when the respondent, in his capacity as Clerk to the Oireachtas Joint Health Committee, allegedly breached her personal sensitive data.  It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) has no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint and that the complaint should be dismissed in accordance with s 22 of the Acts.

The complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on 1 March 2021 alleging that the respondent had breached her personal sensitive data. The complainant outlined several alleged breaches of her sensitive personnel data and alleged breaches of other people’s personal data.

By written submissions dated 29 September 2021 and 07 March 2022 the respondent requested the WRC to refuse jurisdiction to hear the complaint and to dismiss the complaint under s 22 of the Acts on the grounds that the complaint is manifestly deficient, is misconceived and is an improper use of the Acts. It further submitted that the complaint should fail for want of jurisdiction on constitutional grounds as Article 15 of the Constitution and the separation of powers preclude the WRC from investigating matters that concern the legitimate parliamentary business of An Oireachtas Committee.

I must be satisfied of my jurisdiction to investigate this complaint by reference to the relevant legislation and the nature of the complaint.

Equal Status Acts 2000-2005 (“the Acts”)

The Acts prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services on ten protected grounds, namely: gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, membership of the traveller community and in respect of being in receipt of housing assistance (in the context of the provision of accommodation).  There is an onus on a complainant seeking redress under the Acts to establish that they sought to access a service or obtain goods from the respondent that was available to the public generally, and that in so doing they were discriminated on one or more of the protected grounds.

Dismissal of claims

Section 22(1) provides: “The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.”

In Nowak v The Data Protection Commissioner [2016] IESC 18 at page 6, the court stated that “[a]ny public decision maker must have the capacity to screen claims and exclude at an early stage those which are plainly misconceived”.

The meaning and scope of the word ‘misconceived’ was considered by the High Court in Keane v The Minister of Justice [1994] 3 IR 347. In this case it was found that a claim is misconceived if it is incorrectly based in law i.e., the claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislation inter alia.

Findings

This complaint relates to an alleged breach of sensitive personal data. A complaint relating to a breach of personal sensitive data is a matter for a different forum. Reading this complaint in as expansive manner as possible, I am satisfied that this complaint does not fall within the remit of the Equal Status Acts.  The complaint is based on a misunderstanding of the Acts. 

CA-00042258-002

I dismiss the complaint as misconceived in accordance with s 22 of the Acts.

Misconceived.